The Bible has been a subject of tremendous controversy ever since it was beginning to be written approximately 3400 years ago. One of the subjects that scholars, pastors, and Christians debate is whether the ending of Mark, specifically Mark 16:9-20, should be included or deleted. In the New International Version (NIV) translation of the Bible, right before verse 9 of chapter 16 there are the words, “The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9-20.” Alternatively, in the King James Version/New King James (KJV/NKJV), there is no evidence of there being a contradiction or disagreement and verse 8 goes straight into verse 9. Although the difference between the last twelve verses of Mark in KJV and NIV has been
…show more content…
It is important that the degreed person giving their opinion to new believers is not biased and will help others come to their own conclusion. Even after years of study, opinions can change many times because the answer is not laid out clearly. Dr. Bob McCartney, the head pastor at First Baptist Church in Wichita Falls, explains that his own opinion on this subject has changed over the years as he grew in knowledge of the Bible. (McCartney) A few details that stand out to those studying the authenticity of Mark include difference in vocabulary, change in style, and an abrupt ending. The vocabulary in the ending of Mark is different from the beginning of Mark. Dr. Walter Wessel performed a study and came to the conclusion that there were 75 significant words in Mark 16:9-20, 15 of those did not appear in the book and 11 other were used differently than chapters 1-8. (Wessel) Lastly, the ending of Mark chapter 8 and the transition into Mark 9 seems choppy and unnatural. Mary Magdalene is introduced as if for the first time even though she is mentioned in previous verses. Dr. Bob McCartney quotes, “Ending a gospel (good news) with “afraid” doesn’t make sense. In the Greek it actually ends with a conjunction, which makes less sense. Therefore, I believe that Mark intended to write more, but was …show more content…
After hearing many sides of the argument, they must make their own decision. Although a decision must be made alone, the answer to this subject has little importance. Whether or not the ending of Mark was intended to be included in the Bible, the verses offer no significant change. There is nothing in these verses that directly contradict fundamental biblical teachings although there is an important thing to realize. There are subjects discussed in these several verses that Jesus never brings up anywhere. These subjects include speaking in tongues, the promise that no disciple will be hurt eating poison or handling snakes, and Jesus directly rebuking his disciples. Nowhere else in the Bible did Jesus rebuke them so harshly for their unbelief. Jesus also emphasizes belief and baptism for salvation, while baptism is an important part of becoming a Christian; it is not the most vital piece. (McCartney). Even though there are some strange topics in the verses 9-20, there is nothing that directly contradicts doctrinal Christian foundations, so the verses are relatively
It is important that the degreed person giving their opinion to new believers is not biased and will help others come to their own conclusion. Even after years of study, opinions can change many times because the answer is not laid out clearly. Dr. Bob McCartney, the head pastor at First Baptist Church in Wichita Falls, explains that his own opinion on this subject has changed over the years as he grew in knowledge of the Bible. (McCartney) A few details that stand out to those studying the authenticity of Mark include difference in vocabulary, change in style, and an abrupt ending. The vocabulary in the ending of Mark is different from the beginning of Mark. Dr. Walter Wessel performed a study and came to the conclusion that there were 75 significant words in Mark 16:9-20, 15 of those did not appear in the book and 11 other were used differently than chapters 1-8. (Wessel) Lastly, the ending of Mark chapter 8 and the transition into Mark 9 seems choppy and unnatural. Mary Magdalene is introduced as if for the first time even though she is mentioned in previous verses. Dr. Bob McCartney quotes, “Ending a gospel (good news) with “afraid” doesn’t make sense. In the Greek it actually ends with a conjunction, which makes less sense. Therefore, I believe that Mark intended to write more, but was …show more content…
After hearing many sides of the argument, they must make their own decision. Although a decision must be made alone, the answer to this subject has little importance. Whether or not the ending of Mark was intended to be included in the Bible, the verses offer no significant change. There is nothing in these verses that directly contradict fundamental biblical teachings although there is an important thing to realize. There are subjects discussed in these several verses that Jesus never brings up anywhere. These subjects include speaking in tongues, the promise that no disciple will be hurt eating poison or handling snakes, and Jesus directly rebuking his disciples. Nowhere else in the Bible did Jesus rebuke them so harshly for their unbelief. Jesus also emphasizes belief and baptism for salvation, while baptism is an important part of becoming a Christian; it is not the most vital piece. (McCartney). Even though there are some strange topics in the verses 9-20, there is nothing that directly contradicts doctrinal Christian foundations, so the verses are relatively